JAG MOHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. On a statement, Jagmohan, recorded on 10th May, 1991, a case was registered for offences under sections 365, -147, 148, 342, 343 & 392, IPC. On an anticipatory bail-application moved by the accused persons, this Court granted bail to all the six accused persons, on 1st July, 1991. Complainant Jagmohan has moved this application for cancellation of bail on the ground that Ramniwas was still in custody of the accused persons, and has not been recovered. Reference has been made to a letter, alleged to have been sent to Jagmohan, asking for ransom for the release of Ramniwas.

(2.) It was for the complainant to produce this letter before the SHO, PS-Todabhim, who was investigating the case. The case-diary was called for, and it was examined. On going through the case-diary, it appears, that the letter was not produced by the complainant before the SHO, who was the best person to have investigated on it. So far as the accused persons arc concerned, they have appeared before the SHO and have furnished personal bonds and surety bonds. There is nothing to show that the accused persons have not appeared before the SHO, when called upon, in connection with interrogation.

(3.) In these circumstances, I am not inclined to cancel the pre-arrest bail, granted to the nonpetitioners. It is always open to the Investigating Officer to take all possible steps if any person is still to be recovered. The Investigating Officer has ample powers to obtain search-warrants to make recovery. Now, the investigation has been handed over to the DSP. The complainant can always inform the DSP, of the letter, and the Investigating Officer is expected of taking legal recourse permissible for the recovery of Ramniwas if it remains outstanding. With the above observations, this application for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed having no force in it. Application dismissed.